Mon Jan 30, 2006, 10:01pm
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Skarecrow
Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Skarecrow
I agree with all that it is intent #1, but I don't believe that situation #3, taunting, can fit in the definition of Article 1--there is no striking--therefore, you cannot have a flagrant fighting rule....striking is required....
|
Not true. If you taunt, and B1 retaliates by fighting, you are also charged with fighting.
|
Bob: I agree with that under Article 2....I didn't see that, but my comment was that it did not fit under Article 1...thanks for the clarification....Skarecrow
|
Hence this entire thread been about 4-18- 2
|